International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Emerald Article: A Six Sigma framework for marine container terminals

Amir Saeed Nooramin, Vahid Reza Ahouei, Jafar Sayareh
Article information:
To cite this document: Amir Saeed Nooramin, Vahid Reza Ahouei, Jafar Sayareh, (2011),"A Six Sigma framework for marine container
terminals", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 Iss: 3 pp. 241 - 253
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20401461111157196
Downloaded on: 06-10-2012
References: This document contains references to 29 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 262 times since 2011. *
Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *
Briony Birdi, (2011),"Investigating fiction reader characteristics using personal construct theory", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63
Iss: 2 pp. 275 - 294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135709
Jon-Arild Johannessen, Bjrn Olsen, (2011),"Aspects of a cybernetic theory of tacit knowledge and innovation", Kybernetes, Vol.
40 Iss: 1 pp. 141 - 165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684921111117979
Duan Chuan-bin, Chen Peng, (2011),"Broad-spectrum analysis and pansystems methodology", Kybernetes, Vol. 40 Iss: 5 pp. 824 - 830
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684921111142368
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TRAINING & INDUSTRIAL ENGIN
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
A Six Sigma framework for
marine container terminals
Amir Saeed Nooramin
Faculty of Maritime Economics and Management,
Khoramshahr University of Marine Science and Technology,
Khoramshahr, Iran, and
Vahid Reza Ahouei and Jafar Sayareh
Faculty of Marine Engineering, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran
Abstract
Purpose This research uses an optimisation model, based on the Six Sigma methodology, which
assists marine container terminal operators to minimize trucks congestions, as a defect in the global
containerisation and smoothing the gate activity to reduce trucks turn-around times. The main
purpose of this paper is implementing the Six Sigma in the landside of marine container terminals to
reduce the average number of trucks in queues and average trucks waiting times in both entrance and
exit gates.
Design/methodology/approach This study examines the applicability of the DMAIC method
along with the SIPOC, cause and effect diagram, and failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA).
Findings In this paper, Six Sigma methodology is found as an accurate optimisation tool in marine
container terminals. Risk Priority Numbers obtained from the FMEA analysis denote that additional
control procedures and associated inspections are needed as monitoring tools on the working time and
activity of weighbridge operators and trucks drivers. In addition, serious consideration should be
given to operators performance appraisal and improving the administrative systems.
Research limitations/implications This study was carried out with some boundaries; like the
complex operational system in marine container terminals, available data, time constraints, training
the team members and controlling the implemented obtained results.
Originality/value To date, no study has adequately examined the Six Sigma methodology in
marine container terminals as an optimisation tool for reducing trucks congestion. The challenging
issues inherent this problem and the limitation of existing research, motivates this study.
Keywords Six Sigma, DMAIC, FMEA, Container terminal, Truck congestion, Turn time, Iran
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In general, container terminals can be described as open systems of material ow with
two external interfaces. These interfaces are the quayside designed for loading and
unloading of ships and the landside where containers are loaded and unloaded on/off
the trucks (Steenken and Vob, 2004). Most terminals are taking measures to increase
their throughput and capacity by (Huynh and Walton, 2005):
.
introducing new technologies;
.
optimising equipment dwell-times;
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor Antony, University of Strathclyde,
Professor Gitlow, University of Miami, and Dr Banuelas, Rolls Royce plc., for their invaluable
comments, which improved the quality of the paper.
Six Sigma
framework
241
International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
Vol. 2 No. 3, 2011
pp. 241-253
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-4166
DOI 10.1108/20401461111157196
.
increasing storage density;
.
optimising ship turn-around times; and
.
optimising truck turn-around times.
In todays global marketplace, container terminals are regarded as Server-Customer
(Queue) systems wherein servers and customers are variable based on the different
operational viewpoints. Figure 1 shows the Server-Queue system designed based on
the purpose of this study.
In this paper, Six Sigma methodology is used to nd and reduce defects in the server
(gate area) and improve customer satisfaction via decreasing the turn-around time of
the trucks, trucks queue and reduction of the overall transfer cost of containers in their
supply chain cycle.
2. Review of related literature
A great variety of container terminals exists, mainly depending on which type of
handling equipments combined to forma terminal system. Khoshnevis and Asef-Vaziri
(2000) dened three performance analysis variables including throughput, space
utilisation and equipment utilisation. Kozan (2000) discussed the major factors
inuencing the transfer efciency of seaport container terminals by developing a
network model. Nishimura et al. (2001) implemented Lagranges method for optimising
the container yard operation. Similar studies in this eld have been carried out by Nam
and Ha (2001), Lie et al. (2002), Vis and De Koster (2003) and Murty et al. (2003).
Berthplanningproblems maybe formulatedas a different combinationof optimisation
problems, depending on the specic objectives, and restrictions that have to be observed.
Legato and Mazza (2001), Nishimura et al. (2001), Imai et al. (2005) and Moorthy and Teo
(2006) have all carried out numerous studies on berth planning problems. Lee and Chen
(2009) have optimised the berth operation by evaluating different arrival patterns.
Nowadays, the logistics activities, especially at large container terminals, have
reached a degree of complexity that further improvements are required for the interaction
of scientic solutions. Simulation models have become the viable tools for decision
making in port activities. Kia et al. (2002) have investigated the role of computer
simulationinevaluatingthe performance of a container terminal inrelationto its handling
techniques and the impact it makes on the capacity of terminal. Parola and Sciomachen
(2005) have presented a discrete event simulation modelling approach related
Figure 1.
Server-Queue system
in marine container
terminals
Server
(gate)
Queue
(waiting area)
Lane change and
truck turning area
IJLSS
2,3
242
to the logistic chains of anintermodal network. Bielli et al. (2006) have provideda help-tool
in a port decision support system implementing simulation via Java environment.
Froyland et al. (2008) have presented an algorithm to manage the container exchange
facility, including the allocation of delivery locations for trucks and other container
carriers. Zeng and Yang (2009) have developed a simulation optimisation method for
scheduling the loading operations in container terminals.
The time trucks spend at a terminal for loading/unloading of cargo
(truck turn-around time) is a real cost scenario which affects the overall cost of the
container trade. Historically, truck turn-around times have received a very little attention
from terminal operators because landside congestions have never been a barrier to their
smooth operations. Truck turn-around times are the times that a truck takes to complete
an activity such as picking up an import container. As shown in the studies conducted by
Regan and Golob (2000), Klodzinski and Al-Deek (2002) and Huynh and Walton (2005), by
optimising the truck turn-around times and thereby the landside shipping cost, the
terminals would gain a competitive advantage in the industry. Murty et al. (2005) have
described a variety of inter-related decisions made during daily operations at a container
terminal. Their goal was to minimise the waiting time of customer trucks.
To date, no study has adequately examined the philosophy of Six Sigma in marine
container terminals as a managerial decision-making optimisation tool in
strategic/operational levels. The challenging issues inherent this problem, and the
limitation of existing research, robustly motivates this study.
3. Problem statement for the case study
The objective of this case study is to minimise trucks congestions at the main gates of
the container terminal of the Shahid Rajaee Port Complex (SRPC), the major Iranian
seaport, and hence to reduce the trucks turn-around times.
Generally, weighbridges are regarded as one of the main hindered movement
stations in port operation, which cause long queues of trucks. The SRPC is equipped
with six main automatic weighbridges in following patterns:
.
two are located near the main entrance of the gate complex;
.
two are located near the exit gate; and
.
two are located at the transit yard where only one of them is operational.
Even though the case study is unique and distinctive of its kind, the general processes
and characteristics are similar to a typical container terminal as shown in Figure 2.
Since there are usually long queues of trucks waiting in the container yard for
weighting operation, this case study develops a Six Sigma model to nd problems,
defects and barriers in weighting operation, and proposes operational solutions
for reducing trucks waiting times via smoothing the gate activities.
Figure 2.
Process of
loading/discharging
operation in marine
container terminals
Enter
Container
Exit
Road trucks
Road trucks
Delivering export
containers
Picking up import
containers
Q
u
a
y
s
i
d
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Road/vessel crane
Wieghbidges
Gate
Six Sigma
framework
243
4. Case study
This case study examines bottlenecks in the loading and/or unloading process by
examining the following four main patterns with the objectives of reducing trucks
turn-around times:
(1) arrival pattern of trucks at the main entrance of the gate complex;
(2) service pattern of weighbridges located at both the entrance and the transit
gates;
(3) departure patterns of trucks at main gate exit; and
(4) service patterns of weighbridges located at the main exit of the gate complex.
The data gathered from the container terminal of the SRPC during January
2008-December 2009 and are used for evaluation of test cases.
This study examines the applicability of the DMAIC method using the following
tools:
.
supplier input process output customer (SIPOC) chart;
.
cause and effect diagram; and
.
failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA).
Indeed, the objective of this research is to reduce the truck congestion in the transit,
exit and entrance gates of SRPC, using the DMAIC method.
4.1 Dene phase
Marine container terminals can be adequately modeled as supplier-customer systems.
Within them, different service patterns exist; thus SIPOC charts can be used for
analysing their vast operations. Figure 3 shows the SIPOC chart of the case study.
Analysis of the SIPOC chart proves that the optimisation of weighing operation is
an important step for reducing congestion, achieving customer satisfaction and saving
times/costs at loading/unloading operation of trucks. So, Critical to Quality (CTQ) will
be the waiting time of trucks, which are weighed at both entrance and exit gates.
Figure 3.
SIPOC chart
(loading/unloading
operation of trucks)
Supplier Input Process Output Customer
Port operators
Cargo owners
Transport
companies
Shipping lines
Operators
Container
Bill of Lading
(B/L)
Truck
Container
Truck
Train
B/L
Cargo owners
Railway
Transport
companies
Freight
forwarders
Inspection
(by security
guards)
Weighting
reciept
Weighting
operation
Administrative
processing
Loading
unloading
Administrative
processing
Inspection
(by security
guards)
IJLSS
2,3
244
With respect to the dened CTQ, data collection phase was planned aiming to gather
data on waiting time of the entrance and exit gates for weighing operation of trucks.
4.2 Measurement phase
According to the denition of CTQs at the previous section, data for waiting time of
trucks in weighing operation at entrance and exit gates have been collected and shown
in Figures 4 and 5, respectively, using the MINITAB software.
The mean and standard deviations (SD) at the entrance gate are equal to 274.5 and
218.9, respectively. Figure 6 shows the individuals and moving range (I-MR) chart for
the waiting time of entrance gate baseline.
Figure 6 shows that the process mean and variationof waiting time of entrance gate is
not stable. The points of 50, 86.108, 162 and 219 in MR chart and a few ranges in I chart
are out of control which do not reveal any obvious cause of variation and process mean.
Values of the mean and SD for waiting time of exit gate are 777.3 and 531.9,
respectively. Figure 7 shows the I-MR chart of waiting time of exit gate.
Figure 4.
Waiting time histogram of
trucks at the entrance gate
50
Histogram of waiting time of entrance gate
Waiting time of entrance gate (second)
40
30
20
10
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 5.
Waiting time histogram of
trucks at the exit gate
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 400 800 1200 1600
Waiting time of exit gate (second)
Histogram of waiting time of exit gate
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
0
Six Sigma
framework
245
The above I-MR chart indicates that the process mean and variation of waiting time of
entrance gate is not stable. The point of 40 in MR chart and the ranges between 1 and
41, also 49 and 78 in I chart are out of control which do not reveal any obvious cause of
variation and process mean.
Table I represents the DPMO before and after process improvement for main CTQs.
Project objective is to reduce the percentage of trucks waiting time in the entrance
Figure 6.
I-MR chart for baseline
waiting time of entrance
gate data
800
600
400
200
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

v
a
l
u
e
0
800
600
400
200 M
o
v
i
n
g

r
a
n
g
e
0
1 25 49 73 97 121
Observation
I-MR chart of waiting time of entrance gate
145 169 193 217
1 25 49 73 97 121
Observation
145 169 193 217
UCL = 366.5
UCL = 113.0
X = 274.5
MR = 34.6
LCL = 182.5
LCL = 0
Figure 7.
Individual and moving
range chart for baseline
waiting time of exit gate
data
200
150
100
50
0
1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73
Observation
UCL = 142.2
LCL = 0
M
o
v
i
n
g

r
a
n
g
e
MR = 43.5
2
2
22
2
1
1,600
1,200
800
400
0
1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73
Observation
I-MR chart of waiting time of exit gate
UCL = 893
LCL = 662
X = 777
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

v
a
l
u
e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1111
11
11
11
1111
1
1
1
111
11 1
11
11
1
1
5
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
111
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
1
1
1
1
1111
2 2 2 2
2
IJLSS
2,3
246
and exit gates, which are more than 330 and 990 seconds, respectively, to 0.62 per cent
for access to four sigma.
Cause and effect diagram is an analysis tool that provides a systematic way of
looking at the effects and at the causes that create or contribute to those effects (Kumar,
2006). Figure 8 shows the cause and effect diagram of the SRPC which is designed
based on the SIPOC chart.
As shown in the Figure 8, there are four main factors which cause the truck
congestion in the SRPC. These include:
(1) port operators which work on different parts of the SRPC;
(2) port equipments (including both the hardware and software);
(3) trucks and their drivers; and
(4) owners of import/export/transit containers.
4.3 FMEA
FMEA is a structured and qualitative analysis of a system or function which identies
potential system failure modes, their causes and the effects on the system operation
associated with the failure modes accuracy (Gitlow and Levine, 2004; Kumar, 2006).
Table II tabulates the FMEA of the SRPC problem, obtained according to the results of
group brainstorming among the experts of the container terminal of the SRPC, based
on the cause and effect diagram.
Yield DPMO
CTQs Current (%) Desired (%) Current Desired
Waiting time of entrance gate 60 99.38 400,000 6,210
Waiting time of exit gate 65.6 99.38 344,000 6,210
Table I.
Current and process
performance for CTQs
Figure 8.
Cause and effect diagram
(loading/unloading
operation of trucks)
Truck congestion
Port operators
Trucks
Port equipment
Cargo owners
Working hours
Accuracy
Proficiency
Security guards
Crane operators
Weighbridge operators
Hardware and software
Weighbridges
Landside cranes
Exhaustion
Service patterns
EDI implimentation
Equipment defects
Port formalities
Custom formalities
Bill of Lading
Exit pattern of trucks
Arrival pattern of trucks
Traffic signs
Drivers
Enter/exit processes
Six Sigma
framework
247
The analyse phase involves identifying the upstream variables (Xs) for each CTQ.
Upstream variables are the factors (Xs) that affect the performance of a CTQ (Gitlow,
2009). According to the results of the FMEA, followings are the main roots (Xs) of
congestion in the landside:
.
X1 Working time of weighbridge operators (Risk Priority Number
(RPN) 640): total working time of weighting operation during a working
day, X1 0 when weighing operation time matches the working time of port.
.
X2 Activity of weighbridge operators (RPN 490): efcient work of
operators during a working day, X2 0 when weighbridge operators have
done their job efciently.
.
X3 Administrative processing (RPN 448): customs formalities for cargo
clearance and terminal formalities for transport documents such as bill of ladings
(B/Ls), X3 0 when both, the customs and port formalities, are done
electronically based on the electronic commerce principles.
.
X4 Trucks driver (RPN 405): familiarity of drivers with port environment,
X4 0 when trucks divers are familiar with port area and its formalities.
.
X5 Operators accuracy (RPN 336): accuracy of weighbridge operators in
doing their job with no error, X5 0 when weighbridge operators are accurate
and there is no claim on their work.
Failure
mode Potential effect Severity Potential cause Occurrence
Current
control Detection RPN
Truck
congestion
Dissatisfaction
of customers
10 Working time of
weighbridge
operators
8 Indirect
supervision
8 640
Activity of
weighbridge
operators
7 Indirect
supervision
7 490
Accident 9 Trafc signs 6 Video
supervision
3 162
Trucks drivers 5 No enough
supervision
9 405
Human error
and fatigue
8 Operators
accuracy
6 Indirect
supervision
7 336
Activity of
weighbridge
operators
5 Indirect
supervision
6 240
Financial
penalties
7 Administrative
processing
8 Indirect
supervision
8 448
Increment of
trucks waiting
time
6 Weighbridges
malfunction
5 PM 5 150
Operators
accuracy
2 Indirect
supervision
7 84
Container
dwell time
5 Administrative
processing
8 Indirect
supervision
6 240
Drivers
confusion
3 Trafc signs 4 Video
supervision
3 36
Table II.
FMEA for truck
congestion at weighing
operation step
IJLSS
2,3
248
Figure 9 shows the Pareto chart for the main Xs.
RPNs obtained from the FMEA table and Figure 9 denote that additional control
procedures and associated inspections are needed as monitoring tools on the working
time (X1) and activity of weighbridge operators (X2). Furthermore, administrative
systems (X3) and customs formalities should be under an accurate control system.
In addition, serious consideration should be given to trucks drivers (X4) and operators
accuracy (X5).
4.4 Improvement phase
Improvement phase focuses on reducing the amount of variations found in the CTQ by
manipulating the ve critical Xs; that is, X1 through X5. The main concept behind this
phase in the DMAIC method is that the suggestions are based on the analysis of the
cause and effect diagram and the FMEA table.
The results of the FMEA suggest that the most relevant potential causes to address
are operators working time (X1) and their activity (X2). The obtained results imply
that there should be changes made to the weighbridge operators process and weighting
process aiming to decrease variation in the CTQ.
4.5 Control phase
The purpose of the control phase is to make sure that improvements are sustained and
reinforced (Antony et al., 2006). In this phase, based on the FMEA, the following
necessary improvement and control actions are dened, as shown in Table III.
Control and improvement plans are dened based on the results of a workshop
among experts of SRPC. As shown in the Table III, suggested plans include operational
Figure 9.
Pareto chart of main roots
(Xs) of congestion
3,000
Main roots (Xs) of congestion
RPNs 640 490 448 405 336 162 150
5.7 6.2 12.8 15.4 17.0 18.6 24.3 Percent
24.3 42.9 60.0 75.4 88.1 94.3 100.0 Cum %
W
o
r
k
i
n
g

t
i
m
e

o
f

w
e
i
g
h
b
r
i
d
g
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

o
f

w
e
i
g
h
b
r
i
d
g
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
s
'

d
r
i
v
e
r
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
'

a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c

s
i
g
n
s
W
e
i
g
h
b
r
i
d
g
e
s

m
a
l
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
100
80
60
40
20
0
(
%
)
R
P
N
s
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Six Sigma
framework
249
solutions on direction sign installation, administrative solutions on training and
suggestions to improve cooperation among different authorities such as customs and
terminal.
Among all suggested plans for Xs, the X3 has long-term solution, i.e. its
improvement plan needs a long period of time for accomplishment, because it needs an
administrative cooperation between customs and terminal authorities. Thus, due to
lack of sufcient time, we have to only control X1, X2, X4 and X5.
4.6 Achieved benets
Number of queuing lines and average waiting time of trucks are regarded as the main
parameters of a queuing system. Table IV presents the results of implementing the
proposed plans and their effects on reducing truck congestion in the port area.
As stated in Section 4.5, due to time constraint, only improvement plans for X1, X2,
X4 and X5 are accomplished in SRPC. The control plan data in Table IV are gathered
one month after implementing the proposed solutions for Xs, by Six Sigma team
members. As shown in Table IV, accomplishing improvement plans, in the case study
and controlling them regularly, caused a sensible reductions in truck congestion in
both of the entrance and exit gates weighbridges.
5. Conclusion
Six Sigma is an accurate systematic framework for quality improvement and business
excellence, which has never been academically used in marine container terminals.
This paper proposed a Six Sigma methodology aiming to reduce truck congestion in
marine container terminals via smoothing the gate activities, in particular weighting
process of trucks carrying import/export/transit containers.
The DMAIC method along with the SIPOC chart, cause and effect diagram, and
FMEAare used as analyses tools in this research, focusing on managerial operations in
the entrance and exit gates of the SRPC as the case study.
Item What is controlled? Requirements Improvement plan Control methods Frequency
X1 Working time of
weighbridge
operators
Three working
shifts for
operators
Adjusting weighing
operation with
working time of port
(24 hour)
Indirect
supervision by
employer
Weekly
X2 Activity of
weighbridge
operators
Good trained
operators
On the job training Direct
supervision by
employer
Daily
X3 Administrative
processing
Clear
documentation/
Electronic
documentation
Using electronic B/Ls
and more coordination
between customs and
port
Direct
supervision by
middle and top
managers of port
Monthly
X4 Trucks driver Enough
direction signs
in port area
Install more direction
signs in port area
Direct
supervision by
port patrols
Daily
X5 Operators accuracy Good trained
operators/
reports of
customers
On the job training Direct
supervision by
employers
Per
working
shift (three
times/day)
Table III.
Control and improvement
plans for the critical
factors
IJLSS
2,3
250
Working time, activity and accuracy of weighbridge operators, drivers of trucks and
administrative processing were the main causes of trucks congestion in the SRPC.
According to the obtained results, followings should be considered for reducing
trucks congestion:
.
There should be more control on the weighbridges working time.
.
The service pattern of weighting operation should be modied and changed to
the normal distribution.
.
The activity of weighbridge operators should be under anaccurate control system.
.
There should be new trafc signs in the landside area, aiming to reduce drivers
confusion with the processes.
.
EDI should be implemented in the administrative processing, especially customs
formalities and B/Ls.
Accomplishing the improvement plans in the case study have caused sensible
reductions in transit, entrance gate and exit gate weighbridges.
Six Sigma is a statistic based analysis tool, which was imposed following
limitations on this study:
.
With respect to the complex operational pattern of marine container terminals,
a vast range of data is necessary for an accurate Six Sigma analysis.
.
Six Sigma requires massive training among team members, in particular in
implementation and control phases, which was imposed some delays during
research.
.
Control phase is the main limitation of this research, wherein it demands a long
period for implementing the obtained results of the study.
With regards to the mentioned limitations, it might be a good idea to model the control
phase with simulation software packages, such as Arena and Flexsim, and analyse the
simulated results with Six Sigma.
Item Present model Proposed plan Congestions reduction (%)
Weighbridges
of entrance
gate
Queuing
number
Max.
(Que.)
25 6 76
Ave.
(Que.)
9.31 0.8 91
Waiting
time
Max.
(Sec.)
727.6 103.2 86
Ave.
(Sec.)
274.5 20.21 93
Weighbridges
of exit gate
Queuing
number
Max.
(Que.)
34 3.5 89
Ave.
(Que.)
15.56 0.6 96
Waiting
time
Max.
(Sec.)
1667.9 123.2 93
Ave.
(Sec.)
777.3 29.01 97
Table IV.
Achieved benets of
control and improvement
plans
Six Sigma
framework
251
References
Antony, J., Banuelas, R. and Kumar, A. (2006), World Class Application of Six Sigma, Elsevier,
London.
Bielli, M., Boulmakoul, A. and Rida, M. (2006), Object oriented model for container terminal
distributed simulation, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 171, pp. 1731-51.
Froyland, G., Koch, T., Megow, N., Duane, E. and Wren, H. (2008), Optimizing the landside
operation of a container terminal, OR Spectrum, Vol. 30, pp. 53-75.
Gitlow, H. (2009), A Guide to Lean Six Sigma Management Skills, Taylor & Francis Group,
Boca Raton, FL.
Gitlow, H. and Levine, D. (2004), Six Sigma for Green Belts and Champions: Foundations, DMAIC,
Tools and Methods, Cases and Certication, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Huynh, N. and Walton, M. (2005), Methodologies for reducing truck turn time at marine
container terminals, MS thesis, The University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Imai, A., Sun, X., Nishimura, E. and Papadimitriou, S. (2005), Berth allocation in a container
port: using a continuous location space approach, Transportation Research: Part B,
Vol. 39, pp. 199-221.
Khoshnevis, B. and Asef-Vaziri, A. (2000), 3D Virtual and Physical Simulation of Automated
Container Terminal and Analysis of Impact on In-Land Transportation, METRANS
Transportation Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Kia, M., Shayan, E. and Ghotb, F. (2002), Investigation of port capacity under a newapproach by
computer simulation, Computer and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 42, pp. 533-40.
Klodzinski, J. and Al-Deek, H. (2002), Using seaport freight transportation data to distribute
heavy truck trips on adjacent highways, Proceedings of the 82nd Transportation
Research Board Annual Meeting, 11 January, Washington, DC.
Kozan, E. (2000), Optimizing container transfer at multimodal terminals, Mathematical and
Computer Modeling, Vol. 31, pp. 235-43.
Kumar, D. (2006), Six Sigma Best Practices, J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Lee, Y. and Chen, C. (2009), An optimization heuristic for the berth scheduling problem,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 196, pp. 500-8.
Legato, P. and Mazza, R. (2001), Berth planning and resources optimization at a container
terminal via discrete event simulation, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 133, pp. 537-47.
Lie, C., Jula, H. and Ioannou, P. (2002), Design, simulation, and evaluation of automated container
terminals, IEEETransactions onIntelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 12-26.
Moorthy, R. and Teo, C. (2006), Berth management in container terminal; the template design
problem, OR Spectrum, Vol. 28, pp. 495-518.
Murty, K., Liu, J., Wan, Y. and Linn, R. (2003), A DSS (decision-support system) for operations in
a container terminal, working paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Murty, K., Liu, J., Wan, Y. and Linn, R. (2005), A decision support system for operations in a
container terminal, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 39, pp. 309-32.
Nam, K. and Ha, W. (2001), Evaluation of handling systems for container terminals, Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 171-5.
Nishimura, E., Imai, A. and Papadimitriou, S. (2001), Berth allocation planning in the public
berth system by genetic algorithms, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 131,
pp. 282-92.
IJLSS
2,3
252
Parola, F. and Sciomachen, A. (2005), Intermodal container ows in a port system network:
analysis of possible growth via simulation models, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 97, pp. 75-88.
Regan, A. and Golob, T. (2000), Trucking industry perceptions of congestion problems and
potential solutions in maritime intermodal operations in California, Transportation
Research: Part A, Vol. 34, pp. 587-605.
Steenken, A., Vob, S. and Stahlbock, R (2004), Container terminal operation and operations
research a classication and literature review, OR Spectrum, Vol. 26, pp. 3-49.
Vis, I. and De Koster, R. (2003), Transshipment of containers at a container terminal:
an overview, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 147, pp. 1-16.
Zeng, Q. and Yang, Z. (2009), Integrating simulation and optimization to schedule loading
operations in container terminals, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 39, pp. 1935-44.
Further reading
Goh, T.N. (2002), A strategic assessment for Six Sigma, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 18, pp. 403-10.
Nishimura, E., Imai, A., Janssens, G. and Papadimitriou, S. (2009), Container storage and
transshipment marine terminals, Transportation Research: Part E, Vol. 45 No. 5,
pp. 771-86.
Schroeder, R.G., Linderman, K., Liedtke, C. and Cheo, A.S. (2008), Six Sigma: denition and
underlying theory, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 536-56.
Tkac, M. and Lyocsa, S. (2009), On the evaluation of Six Sigma projects, Quality & Reliability
Engineering International, Vol. 26, pp. 115-24.
Corresponding author
Amir Saeed Nooramin can be contacted at: saeid.nooramin@yahoo.com
Six Sigma
framework
253
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints